Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#477 Dec 14 2009 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But in the absence of a better alternative explanation? Occam's Razor and all that...

But there is a better alternative. These politicians believe climate change is actually occurring, they believe there are enough people who believe climate change is occurring, so they can win votes supporting the idea. They also believe that as time passes more people will come to accept ACC and they make political gains my saying "I supported green initiatives all along." People over 60 are the most likely group to disbelieve ACC, so it makes quite a bit of sense. You don't even have to accept the reality of ACC to see how this makes sense.

Even if you think ACC is not occurring, there are many people people, politicians, who genuinely believe it is. You believe SSM is bad for America; I think you're wrong, but I know this is a genuine belief you hold. I don't think you getting a kickback from conservative think tanks to support an idea you believe to be false.
gbaji wrote:
I do find it amusing that the exact same argument is "strong" when it's scientists drawing a paycheck from the oil companies, but "weak" when it's scientists drawing a paycheck from governments. Is that an honest assessment of the likelihood of personal motivation affecting results? Or perhaps there's some bias in here?

The government doesn't have an agenda to specifically support or attack the idea of ACC. Oil companies have a very clear motivation for why they would want ACC to be proven impossible or insignificant.

If everyone in the world accepted ACC as false tomorrow, politicians would lose very little. The Dems would look foolish and maybe give up a few more seats to the Pubbies, but the party wouldn't collapse and they wouldn't see a gigantic power loss. The U.S. government isn't unified in favoring ACC either. Those scientists getting funding from the government are receiving from a government that is full of representatives and senators who deny ACC as well.

If everyone in the world accept ACC as true tomorrow, the oil industry would be in a state of severe shock. It would mean the beginning of strong emission standards, massive subsidies and development in alternative energies, and a huge drop in their stock price. There really isn't a scenario worse for them than everyone unanimously accepting ACC. Each of those seven companies has a unified interest against ACC, nearly all of their profits come from oil related sales.

Regardless of whether ACC is occurring, there are far stronger reasons for people to lie that it isn't occurring than to lie that it is.

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 9:16pm by Allegory
#478 Dec 14 2009 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Majivo wrote:
Quote:
I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

Since you don't speak for the public at large, it's pretty easy to say that your unfounded ideas on this one have no basis in fact.


As I suspected. You don't understand how earmarks work. Go look it up and then get back to me.


Quote:
Quote:

But if we're talking about the scientists themselves, what about all the scientists in related fields who *don't* agree with the IPCC? Guess what? Not all of them work for the oil companies. How do we dismiss their opinions?

We don't dismiss them. We (by which I mean not you) take them into consideration, and we've found the science on one side of the issue to be stronger than the other.


Who's "we" though? That's kinda circular, isn't it? Everyone who dismisses their opinions is in agreement that their science isn't as strong as the science they believe in. Sounds more like faith than science to me...

Ok. Then how do you explain all the former members of the IPCC who have now reversed their positions on the issue? They were good scientists when they agreed, but are bad scientists now? How can you not see that you're judging the science by whether or not it agrees with you, not the other way around...?

Quote:
By the way, good job comparing my point to the idea of paranoid conspiracists, since that's essentially what you are right now.


Except that I'm not the one insisting that everyone pay for what is essentially a whole bunch of really expensive tinfoil hats to protect us from global warming. You get that the "side" who wants to convince the rest of the world to make major sacrifices is the side that has the burden of proof, right? All I have to do is show that there is sufficient question on the issue.


The very existence of large numbers of scientists in a wide assortment of related fields who disagree should be sufficient. Why do you cling so strongly to this belief?

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 7:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#479 Dec 14 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
So gbaji has on his side a few marginalized scientists, neocons and a bunch of multinational corporations and he thinks that everyone else is a sucker?
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#480 Dec 14 2009 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
But there is a better alternative. These politicians believe climate change is actually occurring, they believe there are enough people who believe climate change is occurring, so they can win votes supporting the idea. They also believe that as time passes more people will come to accept ACC and they make political gains my saying "I supported green initiatives all along." People over 60 are the most likely group to disbelieve ACC, so it makes quite a bit of sense. You don't even have to accept the reality of ACC to see how this makes sense.


Ok. But can you see that whether or not the politician believes it isn't that relevant, right? As you said, it's about whether you can get enough people to believe it, not about whether or not it's actually true...

Quote:
Even if you think ACC is not occurring, there are many people people, politicians, who genuinely believe it is. You believe SSM is bad for America; I think you're wrong, but I know this is a genuine belief you hold. I don't think you getting a kickback from conservative think tanks to support an idea you believe to be false.


Yes. I'm not a politician though. It's not that all politicians will follow what the people believe instead of what they believe, but that successful politicians will be those who do. If I run for office in a district in which 80% of the people believe in SSM, I'm going to lose on that issue, while someone who holds the opposite position will win.

The "jaded" part is when you realize that statistically this means that in a representative democracy, virtually all elected officials are there not because they are right about anything, or that they're good people, or that they understand a single thing about any issue. They're there because they hold a set of positions on issues which matches with what the majority of the people who voted for/against them hold. That's it. Oh. And they're photogenic, or connected correctly, or whatever.


That's the difference between a politician and a statesman. A politician reflects what the people want or believe. A statesman is able to convince the people to want or believe something else. The latter is very common and the former very rare.

Quote:
The government doesn't have an agenda to specifically support or attack the idea of ACC. Oil companies have a very clear motivation for why they would want ACC to be proven impossible or insignificant.


Of course they do. There's no political power to be gained by opposing the idea. I already explained this. An industry which pollutes can be regulated and controlled. By defining CO2 as a pollutant, it puts the government in the position to regulate industry to a much greater degree than otherwise.

Quote:
If everyone in the world accepted ACC as false tomorrow, politicians would lose very little. The Dems would look foolish and maybe give up a few more seats to the Pubbies, but the party wouldn't collapse and they wouldn't see a gigantic power loss.


Which just means that there's a lot to gain if you can convince enough people that ACC is a serious threat, and pretty much nothing to lose. You're not exactly disproving my position here...

Quote:
The U.S. government isn't unified in favoring ACC either. Those scientists getting funding from the government are receiving from a government that is full of representatives and senators who deny ACC as well.


Yes. But it's the majority who decide where the funding goes by default. The minority party can use some leverage to add funding into things they want as well, but the system isn't set up to allow them to block it. Not without blocking a whole bill. Have you ever seen a "Fund Global Warming Research" Bill? Or is the money buried inside a larger energy bill typically? Surprise!

Quote:
If everyone in the world accept ACC as true tomorrow, the oil industry would be in a state of severe shock. It would mean the beginning of strong emission standards, massive subsidies and development in alternative energies, and a huge drop in their stock price. There really isn't a scenario worse for them than everyone unanimously accepting ACC. Each of those seven companies has a unified interest against ACC, nearly all of their profits come from oil related sales.


It's not just worse for "them". It's worse for "us". I really do think that most of the people mindlessly clamoring in support of global warming don't really understand the massive economic hit the entire world economy would suffer if they succeeded.

We don't use oil and coal for most of our power needs because the evil oil and coal companies manipulate things to make it that way. I know that's a popular conspiracy theory, but the reality is that if it was really more affordable to generate large scale quantities of electricity via windmills and solar panels we'd be doing it large scale. And if it was really more efficient to power cars via electricity or hydrogen or whatever, we would. The big companies would adopt the technology and sell it for a profit. The free market has no vested interest in blocking new technologies. It's usually the government which does that.

While it's a popular assumption that somehow if we just make burning fossil fuels expensive enough, those evil companies will stop blocking the clean green technology they've been sitting on, the reality is that it will just make everything we do more expensive. Everything. We will be the ones who suffer, not the oil or power companies. They'll just pass the cost on to us.

Quote:
Regardless of whether ACC is occurring, there are far stronger reasons for people to lie that it isn't occurring than to lie that it is.


Not within the context of the actual political conditions at work though. That's really the big problem here. The volume of carbon reduction required is more than the world economy can stand. The numbers are so inflated, so far out there, so ridiculous, that we will bankrupt the entire world before we even put a dent in the CO2 levels. If the temperature models they are using are correct, we're equally screwed whether we adopt every single proposal out there right now or not.


Let me put it another way. And I'll admit that this is a weak argument in terms of the science, but it's a strong one in terms of making a decision on the political end of things. You'd better hope that ACC effects from CO2 are grossly exaggerated. Because the same models which claim that temperatures will go up by 2 degrees C in the next 100 years if we do nothing, show that if we do everything, we might reduce that by .1 to .2 degree C over that time frame (so it'll still go up 1.9 C).

And quite frankly. If we're going to all die anyway, we may as well do it with our industry going at full speed and hope that either the ACC theorists are wrong, or that said industry comes up with a solution. I personally believe (based on a whole assortment of reasons) that the science supporting ACC is weak and unlikely to be accurate. I believe they have grossly overestimated the greenhouse effect of ACC generated CO2, and grossly underestimated other countering natural forces at work. However, even if I'm wrong, there quite literally is no gain in following their recommendations.


They're wrong in either case. We either continue as we are, and temperatures go up a couple degrees with whatever effects that has, or we spend a ridiculous amount of money and make massive sacrifices, and end up in pretty much the same state in a hundred years. Um... Or they're just plain wrong and we're fine in a hundred years either way. One path just has a whole lot of unnecessary pain is all...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#481 Dec 14 2009 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
So gbaji has on his side a few marginalized scientists, ...


Marginalized by who? They're only "marginalized" because they're saying things you don't agree with. As I said earlier, that's circular reasoning.

And it's not "a few". There are more scientists who disagree with ACC causes of global warming then agree with it. And that number is improving steadily, while the number supporting the IPCC recommendations is dwindling.


____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#482 Dec 14 2009 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
gbaji wrote:
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
So gbaji has on his side a few marginalized scientists, ...


Marginalized by who? They're only "marginalized" because they're saying things you don't agree with. As I said earlier, that's circular reasoning.

And it's not "a few". There are more scientists who disagree with ACC causes of global warming then agree with it. And that number is improving steadily, while the number supporting the IPCC recommendations is dwindling.




No, gbaji, a few marginalized scientists who ignore the overwhelming evidence purported by the mainstream. It's like those few that probably still believe there was no moon landing or that overmothering causes homosexuality.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#483 Dec 14 2009 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
EDIT: The larger point is that I can provide a common example of what appears to be collusion among politicians to do something we all agree is "bad", without any massive conspiracy having to be involved. Just combined self interest...

That's great, but showing that something is possible isn't the same as showing that something is occurring.
Yes. But in the absence of a better alternative explanation? Occam's Razor and all that...

You don't understand Occam's Razor, do you? "They want to save the world" (to use your 'alternate' reason) is a much simpler solution than a global conspiracy of paid off scientists from every industrialized nation around the world collaborating to allow the world's governments to seize control of the "industries" so they can control the people. You can easily, even if misguidedly, hear that things are all fucked up with the planet and say "Oh shit! We gotta fix this!".

There's no simple explanation for the idea you proposed which is what makes your simplistic description of it so laughable.

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 10:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#484 Dec 14 2009 at 10:48 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course they do. There's no political power to be gained by opposing the idea. I already explained this. An industry which pollutes can be regulated and controlled. By defining CO2 as a pollutant, it puts the government in the position to regulate industry to a much greater degree than otherwise.

Why would the government want to regulate oil industry? There is no gain to be had in that. Why fight against someone who is potentially your strongest ally? Just look at the food industry where we have--at best--an oligopoly. Massive corn subsidies. Lack of regulation on the healthiness of product. USDA officials who come directly from the industry and after serving go directly back to it.

There is very little political gain to be had in fighting large corporations and so much to be had in partnering with them. There is everything to gain from fighting ACC. Who has the money to fund expensive campaigns? Large companies. Who can provide you with under the table kickbacks? Large companies. Who can give you promising career opportunities if you serve them well while in office? Large companies.

If I get the power to regulate and restrict the oil industry what am I going to do with it? At best I could threaten to actually use that power, but get nothing out of actually regulating and restricting.

Even if there was significant gain to be had in controlling the oil industry it would HAVE to be a conspiracy. It could not possibly be individual politicians acting to advance their own self interest. No individual politicians could hope to ever gain significant control over oil.
gbaji wrote:
Which just means that there's a lot to gain if you can convince enough people that ACC is a serious threat, and pretty much nothing to lose. You're not exactly disproving my position here...

There is very little to gain or lose. If everyone accepted ACC as true tomorrow the Dems wouldn't make huge wins either. They'd grab a few more seats, but it wouldn't be the end of the Pubbies. Overall there is very little political volatility here. No matter what the truth is, neither party has much to gain or lose directly politically. There has to be something else, such as genuine concern that ACC is real and we could ***** up big time or huge external interests with lots of money and power.
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But it's the majority who decide where the funding goes by default. The minority party can use some leverage to add funding into things they want as well, but the system isn't set up to allow them to block it. Not without blocking a whole bill. Have you ever seen a "Fund Global Warming Research" Bill? Or is the money buried inside a larger energy bill typically? Surprise!

But the scientists have been saying the same thing under both administrations and both party's control of the House. Not to mention that the scientific bodies of most every first world country are saying the same thing. Are all the governments in the world simultaneously being controlled by liberals?

gbaji wrote:
It's not just worse for "them". It's worse for "us". I really do think that most of the people mindlessly clamoring in support of global warming don't really understand the massive economic hit the entire world economy would suffer if they succeeded.

They do. If you believe ACC is occurring and we must work towards shifting our dependence on renewable and cleaner energy production, then it's expected there will be huge costs in doing that. The reason renewable energy sources haven't taken control of the market now isn't because people are set against ACC and the technology. It's because most forms aren't economically feasible. In urban areas we're used to paying a few cents per kilowatt hour of power. When gas prices only doubled in a short period it was the most important issue in the news. There are huge costs to switching over to greener alternatives at the moment, and people who support the idea of ACC don't deny this.

The flip side is that if ACC is occurring, then we have to switch over. As much as it would ***** up the economy to survive on only hydroturbines, solar, and wind power, it'd be far, far costly to not do so. The costs of switching to green alternatives because of ACC would engender an economic crisis; the costs of ignoring ACC would effect economic collapse.
gbaji wrote:
And quite frankly. If we're going to all die anyway, we may as well do it with our industry going at full speed and hope that either the ACC theorists are wrong, or that said industry comes up with a solution.

We're not all going to die anyway. If we switched over to largely greener alternatives then the cost of energy may quadruple initially. That is huge, and would ripple throughout the world economy. It would be a significant economic setback, but we wouldn't be dead. If ACC theorists are correct and we don't start switching over, then are looking at severe and widespread famines because ecosystems are severely damaged, and all the economic effects that brings with it.

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 10:53pm by Allegory
#485 Dec 14 2009 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The government doesn't have an agenda to specifically support or attack the idea of ACC. Oil companies have a very clear motivation for why they would want ACC to be proven impossible or insignificant.
Of course they do. There's no political power to be gained by opposing the idea.

Screenshot


Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#486 Dec 15 2009 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
We're not all going to die anyway. If we switched over to largely greener alternatives then the cost of energy may quadruple initially. That is huge, and would ripple throughout the world economy. It would be a significant economic setback, but we wouldn't be dead. If ACC theorists are correct and we don't start switching over, then are looking at severe and widespread famines because ecosystems are severely damaged, and all the economic effects that brings with it.


And here's the thing, energy costs will not in fact quadruple. Also, removal of oil subsidization, which curiously enough leads to less governmental tampering (Which should make Gbaji happy) could be part of the solution.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#487REDACTED, Posted: Dec 15 2009 at 9:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) and if pigs had wings...
#488 Dec 15 2009 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
and if pigs had wings...
would you call it pork or poultry?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#489 Dec 15 2009 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Porkltry!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#490 Dec 15 2009 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Heresy!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#491 Dec 15 2009 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Heresy!

No delicious bacon-eggs for you!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#492 Dec 15 2009 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Still pointing out that someone in this thread still doesn't understand carbon dioxide poisoning, but then learning things from ehow.com will do that to you. Oh well, sometimes there's no way to convince the stupid.

#493 Dec 15 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
If ACC theorists are correct


and if pigs had wings...


This, I think, is actually a more compelling argument than gbaji's global conspiracy theory.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#494 Dec 15 2009 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
gbaji wrote:


And quite frankly. If we're going to all die anyway, we may as well do it with our industry going at full speed and hope that either the ACC theorists are wrong, or that said industry comes up with a solution. I personally believe (based on a whole assortment of reasons) that the science supporting ACC is weak and unlikely to be accurate. I believe they have grossly overestimated the greenhouse effect of ACC generated CO2, and grossly underestimated other countering natural forces at work. However, even if I'm wrong, there quite literally is no gain in following their recommendations.


They're wrong in either case. We either continue as we are, and temperatures go up a couple degrees with whatever effects that has, or we spend a ridiculous amount of money and make massive sacrifices, and end up in pretty much the same state in a hundred years. Um... Or they're just plain wrong and we're fine in a hundred years either way. One path just has a whole lot of unnecessary pain is all...


Why our generation, will die before we may begin to see any benefit of Green technologies, there is a large section of society that wants to make sure our grandchildren and great grand children have a cleaner environment to live in. This is why we bought the most fuel efficient car we could and my daughter and son-in-law bought an hybrid. We recycle as much as we can and only buy Green Star appliances. We're concern about what kind of world Ian and Erin will grow up in and can only hope that actions we make today, will benefit future generations of our family.

Yes we spend more to be Green today, but the hope we are creating a better world for our children is worth it, They may have to have higher taxes to pay for our wasteful spending on things that don't benefit them, like wars and corn sweeteners.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#495 Dec 15 2009 at 2:21 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
And here's the thing, energy costs will not in fact quadruple. Also, removal of oil subsidization, which curiously enough leads to less governmental tampering (Which should make Gbaji happy) could be part of the solution.

While I don't have the statistics to back up my claim, it is based on the prices I've seen for proposed large scale green projects.
#496 Dec 15 2009 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Allegory wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
And here's the thing, energy costs will not in fact quadruple. Also, removal of oil subsidization, which curiously enough leads to less governmental tampering (Which should make Gbaji happy) could be part of the solution.

While I don't have the statistics to back up my claim, it is based on the prices I've seen for proposed large scale green projects.


Where's the documentation to back up your claim?

Also, why don't you count nuclear as a green fuel?
#497 Dec 15 2009 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I was listening to a story today taking place in Copenhagen at the summit. The reporter was talking to this scientist from Norway whose name I can't remember - though he is known for his skepticism on the subject of climate change.

His take on things is that he doesn't dispute the science, or that there is anthropogenic climate change - he just doesn't think that we can do anything beneficial now. He said if the world can pull together $50billion dollars to put towards fixing our climate for future generations - why would we not instead take that $50bil and provide food and shelter for the starving masses right now. This is assuming that some where down the road technology will be in a better position to deal with excessive green house gases.

I thought it was an interesting take on things.

Anyway, I got a kick out of The Daily Show, or maybe it was Colbert last night, spoofing about the 1200 Limos that had been brought in from all over Europe to move the dignitaries around in. I've also heard many arrived to the summit talks in their private jets....le' sigh.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#498 Dec 15 2009 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
EDIT: The larger point is that I can provide a common example of what appears to be collusion among politicians to do something we all agree is "bad", without any massive conspiracy having to be involved. Just combined self interest...

That's great, but showing that something is possible isn't the same as showing that something is occurring.
Yes. But in the absence of a better alternative explanation? Occam's Razor and all that...

You don't understand Occam's Razor, do you? "They want to save the world" (to use your 'alternate' reason) is a much simpler solution than a global conspiracy of paid off scientists from every industrialized nation around the world collaborating to allow the world's governments to seize control of the "industries" so they can control the people.


Yes. But you rejected that as a possible explanation. Thus, in the absence of a stated alternative, the one I've proposed is the "simplest".

Get it?

Oh. And Joph? All that shows is that the energy industry donates most to the party which is in power.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 1:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#499 Dec 15 2009 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But you rejected that as a possible explanation. Thus, in the absence of a stated alternative, the one I've proposed is the "simplest".

I didn't reject it. I just wanted to discuss your explanation rather than stray into discussing other ones. I thought that was obvious but then we've already seen that your idea of "obvious" doesn't exactly match the dictionary.

Quote:
Oh. And Joph? All that shows is that the energy industry donates most to the party which is in power.

Erm... The Republicans were in power in 2008? Smiley: laugh

Nice try, though. Want to claim that the energy & natural sources industry gave the minority party a nearly 2-1 advantage in contributions because they were really impressed with lame duck Bush leaving office?

I do think it's interesting that there was only a difference of 10% in 2000 and then, after Gore lost and went into advocating against ACC and raising awareness of it, industry contributions to Republicans shot up to a 25-30%+ difference between them and Democrats. Can't prove a connection, of course.

But, no... there's no gain for the GOP in denying ACC. None at all! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#500 Dec 15 2009 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Why our generation, will die before we may begin to see any benefit of Green technologies, there is a large section of society that wants to make sure our grandchildren and great grand children have a cleaner environment to live in. This is why we bought the most fuel efficient car we could and my daughter and son-in-law bought an hybrid. We recycle as much as we can and only buy Green Star appliances. We're concern about what kind of world Ian and Erin will grow up in and can only hope that actions we make today, will benefit future generations of our family.


Those are fine. I have nothing against making things as clean and fuel efficient as possible. But the proposals being pushed in response to global warming go far far beyond that. Hence, the problem.

Quote:
Yes we spend more to be Green today, but the hope we are creating a better world for our children is worth it, They may have to have higher taxes to pay for our wasteful spending on things that don't benefit them, like wars and corn sweeteners.


But if we enact the volume of things the global warming folks want us to, we wont be handing our grandchildren a better world. We'll just be making them poor. We will eliminate economic mobility and the middle class long before we reduce CO2 emissions enough to even put a dent in the claimed temperature increases. Historically, when there's a broad movement used to push the people into a massive change like this, with promises of a better world at the end, the people make the sacrifice, but the better world never materializes.


You may think I'm some crazy tinfoil hat wearer, but I see this as a second attempt at a Communist Revolution. This time, using environmental idealism instead of political idealism to push the people into sacrificing for that better future. But long before we get there, the people will have given up so much power and control that when those in power decide to change direction, they wont be able to do anything about it. Worse, they'll probably just meekly accept it as necessary.

Your grandchildren will be slaves. That's the better future you're building for them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#501 Dec 15 2009 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, here's a chart for only the Gas & Oil sectors. Going all the way back to 1990. Democrats as majority party, Republicans as the majority, Clinton as president, Bush as President, the other Bush as president... no matter how you slice it, the money flows right into the GOP pocketbook -- at even greater percentage rates than including the rest of the "natural resources" industry.

And again, there's a significant ramp up after the 2000 election. Interesting!

Edit: Here's coal mining which looks a lot like Oil & Gas. Electric plants has a sudden equality in 2008 after years of GOP domination, perhaps due to companies hedging their bets in a Democratic sweep year and perhaps due in part of Exelon being from Illinois.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 3:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 206 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (206)